Skip to main content

About your Search

20121210
20121210
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
noticed but i'm just wondering how dpw generally follows up with residents with these concerns. i think there is some comments made that the department's hearing was in june and that the first they had learned of this kind of was a few days ago, but i'm just wondering what's your general process of following up with residents. >> thank you, commissioner. thank you, supervisor. normally what happens is usually within 30 days of a hearing, we would provide a finding or notification to all the people who attended that hearing. in this specific case, because there was additional review required, it delayed -- without that information we could not make a final decision and that delayed it. we were unable until approximately early to mid-november to generate the final finding in this case and i think it became a timing issue of getting it to the citizens and the people who were at that hearing and then as it relates also to supporting this to this board at this point, but we normally do try to inform the people at the hearing and the applicant within 30 days or once a decision has been made
this appeal, they want to wait until it's done. we need to get dpw out there. really the main thing left is the grade. we need to adjust the grade and that is dpw, but we were told to hold off until this is done. so we stopped all work on it, just because of that reason. >> okay. >> anything further, mr. duffy? >> the final inspection still needs to be done. it's my understanding that there is probably going to be something needed to be done to secure a level landing at the gate, that would be accessible. the 3' gate. it's also going to meet opening pressure just like any door. so if there is some problems with the weight of the door, it has to have five times opening pressure with a kick plate on the door. so there are a lot of requirements that have to be met. i don't know why they are at with that. i don't know if it was stopped because the suspension and it might explain why a door isn't working properly. i can assure the board i suppose it has to meet accessibility standards in the code. we will obviously with the appeal and stuff like that, this one we'll be paying extra specia
and park department of a permit to remove 14 trees. this is dpw order no. 180717, on for hearing today and we would like to hear first from the appellant. >> ladies and gentlemen, good evening. >> sir, did you ask for assisted listening device? we have one available. >> that would be nice. thank you very much. did you get it? are you person? >> yes. >> thank you so much. >> you are welcome. >> hello, hello. sorry. >> that is okay. take your time. it should be on? is it not already on? >> good evening. >> can you hear me? is it working if you talk through the microphone? >> i hear much better. good evening, ladies and gentlemen. i am here tonight and you probably have in front of you the pages that i have presented in which i was explaining my objection to the removal of a few trees. originally i intended to try to protect the 4 trees, but after an explanation and review with a friend of mine, who experienced in trees i finally reduced my intention to only one tree, which is called a ficus. which is located on across 1321. this tree is really beautiful, and any person that
the appeal from the dpw and we were asked to do some things. we distributed keys and went with the hours of operations and applied for the property building permits that the department of building inspection and went through planning. so we have got gone through the dpw, dbi approved the plans. we haven't quite got it all signed off because we were told to stop on it somewhere along the line when the dbi permit got approved. we did the load studies for the people coming and going and access and push bars and the keys. so it's pretty easy to walk in and out of the door, it works and it can be accessible, if it needs to be. i'm not sure how you would get a wheelchair in the building once it's in there, but it's not a problem. we have to do something with the grade there, but we haven't finished a lot of this stuff and somebody was talking about the structure. we haven't completed it because we were told to stop on it. which they are all pretty simple things to complete, the structure. i think it's a good thing for the building. it keeps them clean and safe and it's for our tenants and we
that be on the basis of the dpw order which reflects those issues? >> yes? >> okay. so that motion is made by commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. on the basis of the dpw order. vice president fung? >> aye. >> president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye. >> that motion carries and the permit is upheld. thank you. >> i would like to call item no. 6 and i want to make sure that thetern for the appellant in that case is in the room. could you raise your hand if you are here, mr. girardi? excellent, just walked into the room. appeal no. 12-085, cambon connoisseur cooperative, inc. versus the zoning administrator. 33 cambon drive aka 6-85 cambon drive, appealing a letter of determination dated july 10 20 12 addressed to matthew girardi regarding whether a medical cannabis dispensary use would be permitted at the subject property. >> my name is matthew girardi and i'm a lawyer and represent the managing patient members of a proposed collective called cambon connoisseur collective and we're challenging a letter of
at 54 peralta avenue for construction of a driveway ramp. >> sponsor is david chiu and from dpw we have david qwan >> my name is eleanor tapk and i am with the department of public works. our office received a major encroachment request from sia consulting on october 26, 2011. the request is to remove and reconstruction a portion of the city-owned maintaining wall to construct a concrete driveway ramp with transition slope to conform to the existing sidewalk grade in order to provide vehicle access to the property at 54 peralta. we have reviewed project, the project has been routed to city planning for them to review on the conformity to the general plan and we receive a letter from them in december 12, 2011, stating that the project conforms to the general plan. we also referred the project to transportation advicery staff committee for them to review and they approved the project on march 22nd, 2012. the project subsequently referred to our department, structural section, hydraulic section, and to the disability sf (inaudible) for their review and they approved the project. we condu
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6